You are on page 1of 4

Republic of the Philippines

MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT OF CALUMPIT


Third Judicial Region
Province of Bulacan

ELENA SANTOS-PAGTALUNAN,
Plaintiff,

- versus - SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION


NO. 16-05
FOR: EJECTMENT

TERESITA BLANCA PAGTALUNAN-DELA CRUZ


Defendant.
x======================x

REPLY

COMES NOW PLAINTIFF, thru the undersigned counsel


and by way of reply to the answer with counterclaim, unto this
Honorable Court, respectfully avers:

1. That the allegations under the special and affirmative


defenses are specifically denied for being baseless factually and
legally.

2. That the allegations of the defendants in paragraph 1


to 5 stating that the complaint failed to state a cause of action
must necessarily fail considering that the complaint substantially
complied with all the allegations necessary for an ejectment suit
to lie. The Supreme Court held in the case of BIENVENIDO
BARRIENTOS vs. MARIO RAPAL G.R. No. 169594 July 20,
2011 that;

Perusing respondent's complaint, respondent


clearly makes out a case for unlawful detainer,
since petitioner's occupation of the subject
property was by mere tolerance. A person who
occupies the land of another at the latter's
tolerance or permission, without any contract
between them, is necessarily bound by an
implied promise that he will vacate the same
upon demand, failing which a summary action
for ejectment is the proper remedy against
them. (Emphasis Ours)

In the case at bar, it is not disputed that the parties herein


are members of the same family. By our culture, it has been a
common practice to allow family members or even others by
virtue of neighborliness to use a property even without any
consideration and this permission was given out of courtesy and
familiarity. Hence, defendants the possession of the property
from the beginning was lawful by virtue of the permission given
by the plaintiff and their failure to vacate despite demand from
the lawful owner made their possession unlawful. Therefore, the
proper remedy of unlawful detainer was only but proper.

3. That the defendants raise the defense of prematurity


of action. This defense must fail considering that there has been
a genuine earnest effort towards a compromise evidenced by the
certification issued by the Lupon Tagapamayapa due to a failed
compromise between the parties. As the Supreme Court itself
pronounces in the case of APRIL MARTINEZ, FRITZ DANIEL
MARTINEZ and MARIA OLIVIA MARTINEZ vs. RODOLFO G.
MARTINEZ G.R. No. 162084. June 28, 2005 that;

The petitioners were able to comply with the


requirements of Article 151 of the Family Code
because they alleged in their complaint that they had
initiated a proceeding against the respondent for
unlawful detainer in the Katarungang Pambarangay,
in compliance with P.D. No. 1508; and that, after due
proceedings, no amicable settlement was arrived at,
resulting in the barangay chairmans issuance of a
certificate to file action. The Court rules that such
allegation in the complaint, as well as the
certification to file action by
the barangay chairman, is sufficient compliance
with article 151 of the Family Code. It bears
stressing that under Section 412(a) of Republic Act
No. 7160, no complaint involving any matter within
the authority of the Lupon shall be instituted or filed
directly in court for adjudication unless there has
been a confrontation between the parties and no
settlement was reached. (Emphasis Ours)

4. That the assertion of the defendant that she is


occupying the subject property in the concept of an owner is
bereft of merit considering that defendant is precluded from
denying the title of petitioners. The Supreme Court enunciated
in the case of MILAGROS TUMULAK BISHOP et al. vs.
HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and SPOUSES MANUEL
AND JESUSA SALANG G.R. No. 86787 May 8, 1992 that;

As registered owners of the lots in question,


the private respondents have a right to eject
any person illegally occupying their property.
This right is imprescriptible. Even if it be
supposed that they were aware of the
petitioners' occupation of the property, and
regardless of the length of that possession, the
lawful owners have a right to demand the
return of their property at any time as long as
the possession was unauthorized or merely
tolerated, if at all. This right is never barred by
laches. (Emphasis Ours)

Furthermore, it has been a basic rule in our


jurisdiction, that when the property is registered under the
Torrens system, the registered owner's title to the property is
presumed legal and cannot be collaterally attacked, especially in
a mere action for unlawful detainer. In the instant case it is
undisputed that the subject property is registered in the name of
herein plaintiff.

5. That on the compulsory counter claims, plaintiff


alleges that they have no factual and legal basis under the
circumstances of this case;

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Malolos City, Province of Bulacan;
January 3, 2017

RAYMOND C. REYES
Counsel of the Petitoner
Unit 4, Capitol Commercial Building
Brgy. Guinhawa, Malolos City, Bulacan
Roll No. 62872
IBP No. 1040937 01/03/17 Bulacan
PTR No. 7660286 (January 03, 2017)
MCLE Compliance No.: V-0024540 12/15/2016

Copy Furnished:

ATTY. BOBBY L. BILLOTE, CPA


Counsel for the Defendant
2F BPSTA Bldg., Provincial Capitol Compound,
City of Malolos, Bulacan
/reply-elena